Maybe it’s time to start using the words that the NRA has turned into unmentionables.

Prohibition.

Mass buyback.

A gun-free society.

Let’s say that one again: A gun-free society.

Doesn’t it sound logical? Doesn’t it sound safe? Wouldn’t it make sense to learn from other developed nations, which believe that only the military and law enforcers, when necessary, should be armed — and which as a result lose far, far fewer innocent people than die every year in the United States?

Yes, even saying these words makes the NRA happy. It fuels the slippery-slope argument the gun lobby uses to oppose even the most modest, common-sense reforms. You see? Background checks today, confiscation tomorrow.

And yes, I understand how difficult it would be. This is a matter of changing the culture and norms of an entire society. It would take time.

Actually, just changing the Bill of Rights. Why stop there? The killer cited reckless media coverage for making previous murderers famous; maybe it's time we have a national conversation about common sense solutions to regulate media.

But the incremental approach is not succeeding. It sets increasingly modest goals, increasingly polite goals: close a loophole here, restrict a particularly lethal weapon there. Talk about gun safety and public health. Say “reform,” not “control.”

The author says the incremental approach to undoing the Bill of Rights isn't working, they need to go whole hog. Close a non-existent loophole here, restrict whatever weapon is black, has stuff on it, and looks shooty. Tell people that control is “reform.” Punish the law-abiding for the deeds of the criminals.

Every time there is a mass shooting, gun-control advocates argue again for legislation. But almost every time, opponents can argue that this shooter wouldn’t have been blocked from buying a gun, or that this gun would not have been on anyone’s banned list — and so why waste time (and political capital) on irrelevant restrictions?

Modest restrictions can help and have helped. The one-gun-a-month law can reduce crime.

Based on ... ? Doesn't seem to be working for Chicago, DC, Philly, NYC, etc. Maybe they're anomalies.

The gun-show loophole should be closed, and closing it would prevent some criminals from obtaining weapons.

What “loophole?” If you are classified by the ATF as a dealer you must have a federal firearms license. Background checks are mandatory. You can't order a gun off of the Internet and have it shipped to your home; it must go through an FFL. No FFL is going to jeopardize their hard-won license for a criminal sale. You may not purchase a firearm from across state lines as dealers are barred via the Gun Control Act of 1968 from selling or transferring firearms sans FLL across state lines.

You may purchase a firearm from an occasional seller, not a dealer (differences matter) in your state of residence if you are legally allowed to own a firearm (no domestic violence record, no felonies, no drug use, et al.)—meaning you are not a prohibited possessor or even suspected of being a prohibited possessor. If you are a prohibited possessor and you buy a gun regardless you're breaking the law and will be charged with a crime. If a person knowingly sells a prohibited possessor a firearm they are breaking the law and will be charged with a crime. If they claim cluelessness they still may be charged depending on the results of the investigation. That's not a loophole, that's a criminal act. If your driver's license is suspended due to a DUI and yet you continue to drive, that's not a loophole in the law, it is a criminal act. What anti-Second Amendment advocates mean when they use the rhetorical scam term “loophole” is that they want the federal government to treat every single American as a federal firearms dealer, meaning they would have to establish a national, quasi-registry (current law prevents the federal government from compiling a registry based off of the NICS information) to make it work and make your husband doubly-answerable to the ATF if he legally buys your son his first hunting rifle.

Adam Lanza, Jared Loughner, Seung-Hui Cho, Dylann Roof, Chris Mercer, and James Holmes did not obtain guns through private purchases (Lanza's first crime was a felony—stealing his mother's unsecured firearms which by itself is actionable considering his mental state). In each case their families, the state, or the background check system failed. Cho was adjudicated mentally unfit and should not have been able to purchase a gun.

Punishing innocent Americans for the decisions of criminals is gun shaming and abhorrent.

As we’ve seen over the past 15 years with same-sex marriage, such deep cultural change is difficult — and possible.

It's rich that the side which advocates for the “sanctity” of infanticide is concerned about loss of life elsewhere. You want to stop gun homicide? Revolutionize the justice system. Make deterrents real and heavy-handed during sentencing. Quit early releasing felons. Stop reducing bail for repeat offenders of gun crimes. Allow people to defend themselves. Murderers stop every time they're confronted by a good guy with a gun—either self inflicted or police inflicted. Don't whine about a “cultural change” while you push to mainstream pedophlia and black market baby organ sales. People aren't so stupid that they'll miss that massive disconnect.

Given how guns decimate poor black communities every day — not just when there are mass shootings, but every day — this is a civil rights issue.

Oh, finally, eons down the article the author finally thinks of inner city gang crime. But it's not gang crime causing this, it's guns. If guns didn't exist there wouldn't be any gangs! Ever! Yes, gun rights are a civil rights issue. Anti-Second Amendment advocates constantly find themselveson the wrong side of it.

The Supreme Court, which has misread the Second Amendment in its recent decisions, would have to revisit the issue. The court has corrected itself before, and if public opinion shifts it could correct itself again. If it did not, the Constitution would have to be amended.

And admitted: Doing away with the Bill of Rights.

There are strong arguments against setting a gun-free society as the goal, but there are 100,000 arguments in favor — that’s how many of us get shot every year. Every year 11,000 Americans are murdered. Every year some 20,000 kill themselves with guns.

The author would do well to learn how to read statistics and not cite the debunkedKellerman study (he refused to release his findings initially because he knew they were flawed; I also debunked him in my book) or the ridiculous “Violence Policy Center” via the very anti-gun “Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence.” Anti-Second Amendment advocates always include suicides in with homicides to inflate numbers. Automobile accidents kill more people than guns. (See also drowning, bathtubs.) We should have a national conversation about common sense laws to restrict access to automobiles.

Maybe it’s time to start talking about the most logical way to save their lives.

None of what this author proposed would qualify as “logical.” We should talk intelligently about enforcing current laws, strengthening the justice system and reducing the bureaucracy, and stopping gun shaming.

Dana Loesch

Dana Loesch is the author of "Hands Off My Gun” (October 2014, Hachette) and hosts her award-winning, daily syndicated radio show, "The Dana Show: The Conservative Alternative" on Radio America 1-4pm ET. She also hosts “DANA” on The Blaze TV, weekdays at 6pm ET.

comment(s)

Loesch shines the light of truth on everything from feminism to gun violence to abortion. She reveals the damage done by elitists who flat-out don’t get the lives and values of people in the heart of the country. And she asks commonsense questions such as: How can you be angry at Walmart if you’ve never shopped in one? How can you hate the police if you’ve never needed help from a cop? How can you attack Christians if you don’t have a single friend who goes to church?
In other words, how can you run a country you’ve never been to? And how much could our politics improve if Coastals would actually listen to their fellow Americans? This book is a rallying cry for anyone who wants our leaders to understand and respect the culture that made America exceptional in the first place.

Dana Loesch hosts her award-winning, nationally syndicated daily radio show, The Dana Show: The Conservative Alternative from Dallas, Texas where she also hosts “Dana” on The Blaze television network. Dana appears regularly on Fox News, ABC, CNN, among others, and has guest co-hosted “The View.” She describes herself as a “conservatarian.”